# Lallan Kumar Revisionist v. Union of India & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 472
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 339 of 2020
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lallan-kumar-revisionist-v-union-of-india-anr-opp-parties-49981
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 451 & 457(1) - Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 - Sections 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 51, 60 &
60(3) - Criminal Revision - Challenging the
order impugned - by which the application of
revisionist for released the vehicle in question,
alleged to be recovered, was rejected - court
finds that, vehicle in question was purchased on
load for which he is paying EMI - after
confiscation vehicle was laying in the concerned
police station since 2019 - plea taken that same
was not released it will be damaged and
revisionist has been paying the EMI of the bank
- there would be no useful purpose to keep the
vehicle in police station - held, impugned order
is absolutely erroneous being in contrary to law
laid down by Apex Court in 'Sunder Bhai Ambala
Desai Case' - hence, impugned order deserve to
be set aside and it is directed that interim
custody of vehicle be given to revisionist on
producing Registration Certificate of concerned
vehicle during pendency of trial and also
4 All. Lallan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
473
furnishing security of to the satisfaction of
concerned Court - Revision Allowed. (Para - 4,
5, 7)

Criminal Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बनाम इरशाद अली13 एिं अममत कपूर बनाम
रमेश चन्दर14 का उललेख ककया जाना सुसंगत है।

28. अतः उपरोक्त िर्णत वििेचना के
आलोक िें आलोच्य ननणतय एिं आदेश ददनांककत
26.10.2019 पूणतः साक्ष्य सम्ित एिं पक्षों द्िारा
प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य के सम्यक विचलेषण पर आिाररत है,
जजसिें कोई अिैिाननकता, ताजत्िक त्रुदट अथिा
क्षेत्राधिकाररता संबंिी त्रुदट पररलक्षक्षत नहीं होता है।

29. ननणतय पूणत करने के पूित यह उललेख ककया
जाना िी सुसंगत प्रतीत होता है कक यद्यवप प्रचनगत
प्रकरण िें विद्िान विचारण न्यायालय ने इस आशय
का स्पष्ट ननष्कषत अििाररत ककया है कक विपक्षी
संख्या 2 पुनरीक्षणकतात की वििादहत पत्नी हैं एिं
पुनरीक्षणकतात यह भसद्ि करने िें पूणतः असफल रहे
हैं कक उनके द्िारा विपक्षी संख्या 2 को तलाक़ दे ददया
गया है। तथावप इस न्यायालय का यह सुविचाररत ित
है कक डैतनयल लतीफी (उपरोक्त वर्णकत) एवं शमीमा
फारुकी बनाम शाहहद खान (उपरोक्त वर्णकत) िें
प्रनतपाददत विधि भसद्िान्त के आलोक िें यह अब
कदावप अननर्णत विषय नहीं है कक एक िुजस्लि पत्नी
अपने पूित पनत से तलाक़ के उपरान्त िी पुनवितिाह न
करने तक की अिधि हेतु िरण-पोषण की िनराभश
प्राप्त करने हेतु संदहता की िारा 125 के अन्तगत
आिेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत करने हेतु सितथा सिथत है।

30. उपयुतक्त िर्णत सिस्त विचार-वििशत का
सार यह है कक प्रस्तुत दाजण्डक पुनरीक्षण बलहीन है
एिं पाररणाभिक रूप से ननरस्त ककए जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

31. पाररणाभिक रूप से दाजण्डक पुनरीक्षण
ननरस्त ककया जाता है।

32. वनणवय की एक प्रवत विद्वान अिर
न्यायालय को सूचनार्थव एिं अनुपालनार्थव अविलंब
प्रेवित की जाए।
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 472
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 339 of 2020

Lallan Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Sri Afshan Shafaut, Sri
Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Sri
Sushil Kumar Yadav, Sri Amit Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.S.G.I., Sri Sudarshan Singh, Sri Ashish Pandey

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 451 & 457(1) - Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 - Sections 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 51, 60 &
60(3) - Criminal Revision - Challenging the
order impugned - by which the application of
revisionist for released the vehicle in question,
alleged to be recovered, was rejected - court
finds that, vehicle in question was purchased on
load for which he is paying EMI - after
confiscation vehicle was laying in the concerned
police station since 2019 - plea taken that same
was not released it will be damaged and
revisionist has been paying the EMI of the bank
- there would be no useful purpose to keep the
vehicle in police station - held, impugned order
is absolutely erroneous being in contrary to law
laid down by Apex Court in 'Sunder Bhai Ambala
Desai Case' - hence, impugned order deserve to
be set aside and it is directed that interim
custody of vehicle be given to revisionist on
producing Registration Certificate of concerned
vehicle during pendency of trial and also
4 All. Lallan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
473
furnishing security of to the satisfaction of
concerned Court - Revision Allowed. (Para - 4,
5, 7)

Criminal Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kapil Jha Vs The St. of M. P. (MCRC No.4636
of 2022),

2. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj.,
2002 (10) SCC 283.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. No one appears on behalf of Union
of India despite the fact that counter
affidavit has been filed by the special
public prosecutor (NCB).

3. By the present criminal revision,
revisionist has challenged the order dated
16.12.2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.-16, Varanasi in
Case No.10 of 2019, under Sections-8, 20,
27-A, 29, 60 (III) of NDPS Act, Police
Station-N.C.B. Mahanagar, Lucknow was
rejected on the ground that the applicant
could not brought on record any evidence
that this fact was not in his knowledge that
his vehicle was used in the aforesaid crime.
Therefore, on the ground of Section 60(3)
of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act'), the aforesaid application
was rejected.

4. As per against the case of the
prosecution
itself,
only
five
packet
containing ganja was alleged to be
recovered from his vehicle though, there
was no independent witness in the
aforesaid recovery and ganja was recovered
from the truck standing behind his vehicle.
It is further stated that vehicle in question
was purchased on loan for which he is
paying EMI. His vehicle, after confiscation,
were lying in the concerned Police Station
and will be damaged, if not released. In
support of his contention, learned counsel
for the revisionist has placed reliance upon
a judgement of Madhya Pradesh High
Court in MCRC No.4636 of 2022 (Kapil
Jha Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) in
which the Hon'ble Court after relying upon
the judgement of the Apex Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat 2002 (10) SCC 283 observed that
the vehicle confiscated under Section 60 of
the N.D.P.S. Act but by virtue of Section
36-C as well as Section 51 of N.D.P.S. Act,
it is clear that the provision of Section 451
or 457(1) of Cr.P.C. also applicable which
provides that during pendency of the trial,
property should be released in the interim
custody of the owner so as to save it from
damage.

5. I am of the view since the vehicle
in question was lying in the concerned
police station since 2019 and the revisionist
has been paying the installment of bank and
there would be no useful purpose to keep
the vehicle in police station under the
confiscation because trial may take time, in
the meantime, vehicle in question may be
damaged. Therefore, the impugned order is
absolutely erroneous being in contrary to
law laid down by the Apex Court in
Sunderbhai
Ambala
Desai
(supra),
therefore deserve to be set aside and it is
directed that interim custody of Scorpio
Car bearing Registration No.BR-10-PA9743 be given to the revisionist on
producing Registration Certificate of the
concerned vehicle during the pendency of
trial and also furnishing the security of
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the
revision is allowed.

7. In view of the above, the finding of
the Court below that since the vehicle is
liable to be confiscated, interim custody
cannot be granted, is liable to be set aside
and accordingly, the impugned order dated
16.12.2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.-16, Varanasi is
hereby set aside. Accordingly, by allowing
the application, the vehicle is ordered to be
released on following conditions:-

(i) It is ordered that on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
by the revisionist, the aforesaid vehicle
(Scorpio bearing registration No. BR-10-PA9743) shall be handed over to the respective
revisionist on Supurdginama on proving
ownership of the same;

(ii) whenever it would be required by
the competent Court the same will be
produced on petitioner's own expenses at the
place as would be directed in this regard;

(iii) at the time of release of the vehicle
on Supurdginama, the aforesaid Authority
shall ensure to take note of chassis number,
engine number and registration number of the
aforesaid vehicle and keep on record;

(iv) the petitioner shall neither alter or
change the condition of the aforesaid vehicle
in any manner whatsoever during pendency
of the litigation;

(v) the petitioner shall not create any
third party rights over the aforesaid vehicle;

(vi) the petitioner shall not fiddle with
or scratch or erase numbers engraved in the
chassis and engine of the vehicle;

(vii) in the event, all or any of the
aforesaid conditions are found to have been
violated, the respondent / State is at liberty
to move this Court to such modification /
variation of the order passed by this Court
today.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 474
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2213 of 2018

Vinod Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri M.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Smt. Meenakshi
Chauhan

Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 154,156 & 397-
Application u/s 156 (3) CrPC moved by
the revisionist was rejected by the learned
Court below-Magistrate u/s 156 (3) CrPC
is
legally
authorized
to
order
for
registration of F.I.R. , investigate into the
matter or to treat such application as a
complaint, as the case may be and he is
fully empowered even to reject the
application moved before it-Before taking
recourse of the Court the complainant
ought to move to the police station for
registration of the F.I.R. and if unattended
there,
move
an
application
to
the
Superintendent of Police and this fact also
be deposed clearly in his application u/s
156(3) CrPC moved before the MagistrateIf no affidavit was filed in support of the
application u/s 156(3) CrPC the same
could not have been entertained by the